Joystiq has an image of a store display in a Rochester, Minnesota Best Buy that seems to show a February 1 launch date for Diablo III, Blizzard's upcoming action/RPG sequel. They have some follow ups that don't completely confirm or deny this, and word that the end-cap was legit, but has since been removed. Meanwhile, the Best Buy Website now shows a February 1 release date for the game.

I was going to point out that being out of the discussion with Peeling =/= out of the thread, (before I realized you are just Gtard69 back with another account after being banned), but... Jesus tap-dancing Christ, you are too stupid to even spell "LIAR"? Who helped you set up your accounts? You are obviously incapable of doing anything so technical on your own.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Blizzard chose to force online all the time for D3. They did this knowing there would be a backlash, as there was vs. Ubisoft, etc. when they pioneered this DRM model. They calculated that the loss of gamers pissed off by this decision would be less than the sales lost to piracy (assuming this prevents piracy). That's their choice.

This means I will not be able to play offline. It means I may not be able to play in five or ten years if the authentication servers are no longer online. These decisions have cost them my sale. It's really that simple. Torchlight 2 will not have these restrictions while offering similar gameplay, so I'll try that instead. Or maybe I'll just keep playing Skyrim and Fallout 3 or even Titan Quest (Iron Lore, RIP). There are lots of alternatives with less onerous restrictions.

Verno wrote on Jan 12, 2012, 09:28:He can dance around it all day but the reality is that it's a large reduction in usability that's not really offset by anything presented with the thinnest possible justification I can imagine. The claim that it's ultimately in service of the customer is pretty amusing. I think a lot of people might respond with "thanks but uh don't do me anymore favors". I'm sure Diablo 3 will be a good game to some people but I'll just spend my money somewhere else. Back when we used to count the years between blockbuster titles in this market I might have said this was a must have title but I have a backlog full of games that fit that description so *shrug*. If they want to be dismissive, give them the same in return.

I just love that he's claiming the game is "built around connectivity" After he's denied repetedly that it's not to try to force people to use a real money auction house that blizzard takes a cut from.

So someone playing solo as a mage for will only find barbarian items in their games, thus forcing them to trade for mage items? Once again it's not even a real or legit reason because it's flat out false. Blizzard fanbois never cease to amaze me with their stupidity.

He can dance around it all day but the reality is that it's a large reduction in usability that's not really offset by anything presented with the thinnest possible justification I can imagine. The claim that it's ultimately in service of the customer is pretty amusing. I think a lot of people might respond with "thanks but uh don't do me anymore favors". I'm sure Diablo 3 will be a good game to some people but I'll just spend my money somewhere else. Back when we used to count the years between blockbuster titles in this market I might have said this was a must have title but I have a backlog full of games that fit that description so *shrug*. If they want to be dismissive, give them the same in return.

I see you ignored the ISP and developer issues, which are very much legit concerns. What you claim are hardware requirements aren't really; they are service requirements. Also, the comparison with the shotgun in the game is a flawed analogy as not using the shotgun is a choice, being unable to use Blizzard's [very much not needed] service is not.

Could you please explain to me how being unable to use their service, thus preventing me from playing the game, is acceptable?

Also, I'm not picturing a world in the way you claim, I'm pointing out valid concerns about poor game design.

lurkerator wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 20:02:I usually lurk, but this is just too much.

Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:

Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:23:The only strawmen in this discussion are the pitiful ones you are building to avoid addressing the obvious point: there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.

...to a game designed and balanced to be played in connection with others? Hmm.

It's clearly not an MMO-game, and they've stated several times that the game can be played solo.

Yes. It's not the optimal way to play it, but you can choose to do that. You can play a FPS without using the shotgun, too, but that doesn't entitle you to a build of the game where the shotgun has been removed.

How does forcing connectivity help me if I can't play online, in a place with bad (or no) Internet connection?

It doesn't. If that's the case for you, I sympathise, as I would with anyone who didn't meet the hardware requirements for a game they want to play.

Before you explode, I understand that this particular requirement is tangential to your personal preferences. The same could be said for someone who wants to play Crysis and doesn't care how low he would have to set the graphics settings.

This all especially if I don't want to play with other people, but I still want to play the game solo, and without using any fancy auction houses or whatever. I want to beat the game alone, and where I do that should not matter.

Like I said, your personal preferences are tangential to one of the hardware requirements for the game as it was designed to be played. It happens.

Also, no "offline" LAN play? That's wrong as well. If someone wants to play in a LAN with friends and the above mentioned problems arise, they can't play. For no good reason.

We're clearly at an impasse You're picturing a world populated largely by cross people in log cabins and at failed LAN events, a scenario for which there's no imaginable justification. And if that's what happens, you'll be right and I'll be wrong. It didn't happen with SC2, but we'll see, I suppose.

Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:I know your reasons, and those of others here, but I don't know why they are your reasons. I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued. I don't see how the game would be improved as a result.

You don't understand that a game that can be played both offline and online is an improvement over a game that forces you to always be online?

Not when that game isn't actually designed or balanced for full disconnection, and not when connectivity is almost a given, no.

Of course this is an improvement though, nobody plays games without an internet connection, and nobody would ever want to play a Diablo game by themselves.

As I just got through saying, I sympathise with those who can't play D3 because of their internet connection. I do not sympathise with those who have an internet connection but can't enjoy D3 solo play unless they know it isn't being used.

Bhruic wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:31:Now, Blizzard can just say "fuck you" to those people, which they've done, and that's fine, it's their business, and they are welcome to ignore whomever they wish. But apologists like you coming in here and acting as if we don't even have the right to be upset about it, on the other hand, is not kosher. You're like the idiot coming in to a thread to say that a game works fine for him, so anyone complaining about bugs is wrong.

Not at all - and I'm sorry if I've given that impression.

I have every sympathy with someone who says "My internet connection is too flaky to allow me to play this game. I really enjoyed D1 and D2 and was looking forward to D3. I am very disappointed and will not be buying a game I can't properly enjoy." It sucks to be left behind, even if getting left behind (generally temporarily) is an occupational hazard for gamers.

I don't, however, think Blizzard's decision demonstrates a lack of regard for their fans. D3 on consoles only? Absolutely, and I'd support people with 360s and PS3s boycotting D3 under those circumstances. But designing D3 around being connected? No. As I said, we're not yet at the saturation point we've reached with graphics cards, but we're close enough. We're certainly near or past the point with connectivity where companies were making games that required graphics cards.

On the other hand I have no time for arguments that pure unconnected single player is a 'tradition', with inherent merit that should shape the design of this particular game. It's not. It was a technical requirement of the age.

Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:23:The only strawmen in this discussion are the pitiful ones you are building to avoid addressing the obvious point: there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.

...to a game designed and balanced to be played in connection with others? Hmm.

It's clearly not an MMO-game, and they've stated several times that the game can be played solo.

How does forcing connectivity help me if I can't play online, in a place with bad (or no) Internet connection?

Or if the world servers are down?

Or if I'm over my bandwidth quota?

Or if my/their ISP is having problems?

Or if I can't access my Battle.net account for whatever reason?

This all especially if I don't want to play with other people, but I still want to play the game solo, and without using any fancy auction houses or whatever. I want to beat the game alone, and where I do that should not matter. Forcing online play for single player will always be plain wrong. If I want to store my single player characters online, I don't have to be online all the time for that. I should just be able to synchronize them later, whenever I please.

Also, no "offline" LAN play? That's wrong as well. If someone wants to play in a LAN with friends and the above mentioned problems arise, they can't play. For no good reason.

Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:I know your reasons, and those of others here, but I don't know why they are your reasons. I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued. I don't see how the game would be improved as a result.

You don't understand that a game that can be played both offline and online is an improvement over a game that forces you to always be online?

I have a friend at work in his late 30s who's been playing nothing but MMOs for the past decade. Because of all the talk about Skyrim he decided to pick it up. After the holiday break he came back and told us how awesome it was to be able to play it on his laptop while visiting family out in the sticks. I reminded him that he's been missing out on great single player gaming for years. Hilariously he name dropped Diablo 2 as something he used to play a lot of SP on, and of course I reminded him that that wouldn't be possible in D3.

Of course this is an improvement though, nobody plays games without an internet connection, and nobody would ever want to play a Diablo game by themselves.

Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued.

fanboi.

you're just a fanboi. you swallow anything companies feed you and then call it the new tradition.

Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:I don't see how the game would be improved as a result.

It's not about the game. It's about the customer who purchased it.

Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:I can't understand why

because you're closed minded.

Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:an internet-connected D3

That's not what players are expecting. They are expecting a game they can play single player or on LAN, with the OPTION of doing multi-player if they choose to do so.

---

In addition, you open your mind to other factors such as Blizzard's desire to track your activity for example. Such activity is personal. Blizzard would do this without your consent. Oh wait, the EULA has a hidden line in there that probably gives Blizzard consent to do so.

---

Aside from all that, there is also:"World Server Down""Banned""Patching"

---

Have fun being owned, fanbois. It's what Blizzard expected. You fanbois yap so much about how D3 will rock, Blizzard has gotten ahead of themselves and have the balls to sell us on this DRM crap, and sadly enough most of fanbois will eat it up. Blizzard owns you. haha

And this is where the stupidity of your position jumps out. The reason we're actually having this discussion at all is because connectivity isn't a given. If 100% of the population had a 100% stable connection 100% of the time, then there'd be no rational reason to be upset about this decision. It doesn't take much thinking, however, to easily come up with numerous situations for which there wouldn't be a 100% stable connection. Or one that's available 100% of the time. Or for 100% of the people.

Now, Blizzard can just say "fuck you" to those people, which they've done, and that's fine, it's their business, and they are welcome to ignore whomever they wish. But apologists like you coming in here and acting as if we don't even have the right to be upset about it, on the other hand, is not kosher. You're like the idiot coming in to a thread to say that a game works fine for him, so anyone complaining about bugs is wrong.

Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:23:Sorry, Peeeling; in some ways it's easier to deal with Gtard69. I know he's a drooling, blithering idiot. But you? How could someone who writes so well and displays such obvious intelligence be so dense?

There's always the chance I'm actually right, I suppose

The only strawmen in this discussion are the pitiful ones you are building to avoid addressing the obvious point: there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.

...to a game designed and balanced to be played in connection with others? Hmm.

And when you take a break from throwing out your impenetrable walls of text and do give supposed reasons attempting to defend such an action, said reasons are so pitifully, laughably lame that it's nigh impossible for me to accept that even YOU actually believe them.

Like I've said several times now: if you are determined to treat the requirement to be online as if it were the donation of a testicle, yes, these reasons will seem lame.

If, on the other hand, you take connectivity as a given, as something just there to be designed around like the mouse, keyboard, monitor and hard-drive, then the fringe benefits and streamlining of the whole product are easily worth it. That's the context in which Blizzard have made their decision.

That some people are of the opinion that the always-online requirement is a non-issue is easy for me to accept; as I said, everyone can decide for themselves what's a deal-breaker and what isn't. My issue is with people pretending they see no reason why some of us feel that this IS a deal-breaker. Such willfulness ignorance is bothersome to me.

Ok, now think about what you just said. You can easily accept that there are people who see it as a non-issue. By definition, those people can't see any reason why it would be a deal-breaker, and don't think the reasons proffered are terribly good.

I know your reasons, and those of others here, but I don't know why they are your reasons. I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued. I don't see how the game would be improved as a result. I can't understand why you would sit with a frowny face in front of an internet-connected computer playing an internet-connected D3 completely solo, but sit with a happy face in front of an internet-connected computer playing the exact same game if you knew it wasn't online.

To me, the mere possibility that one day I might think, "You know what, I said I wouldn't but I'm going to sell that loot on the AH," or "You know what, I DO feel like playing with Bob tonight rather than on my own," would be sufficient to tip the scales.